Sharks are entitled to their domain

How vain do we want to be as a culture? How disconnected with our natural environment? Because there are now numerous calls to start killing more sharks to extend our ability to frolic in ocean waters off populated shores.

The most conspicuous supporter of shark killing is the Premier of Western Australia, Colin Barnett, who has proposed that sharks be shot and disposed of at sea if they come within one kilometre of the coast.

Masters of the sea: The ocean is the domain of sharks, and we are entering their world. Photo: Discovery Channel

He was responding to the latest fatal shark attack in his state. A father of two, Chris Boyd, was surfing on the south-west coast at Gracetown when he was taken by what is believed to be a great white shark.

The WA government has already drawn up tender documents for shark culling and is ready to put this policy into practice. The president of the Margaret River Boardriders Club, Tom Innes, said that because great white sharks were a protected species under federal law, there were now many more of them off the southern shore of WA and there had been an increase in attacks. He recommended that sharks larger than three metres be culled if they were found near popular beaches.

On one level, there is a logic to this. It is hard to imagine a more terrifying experience than a shark attack. Nor is there a more primal threatening image than the maw of a great white shark. Last month, it was shocking to the community when 19-year-old Zac Young was taken by a shark while surfing off Sapphire Beach north of Coffs Harbour.

It was deeply traumatic to his friends, tragic for his family and jolted our readership across the state. He was the 69th recorded fatal victim of a shark in NSW, according to the Australian Shark Attack File. His death has led to more calls for the killing of sharks.

Advertisement

The Herald does not believe these and other attacks provide a reason to start killing sharks. The ocean is their domain. They have existed there longer than humans have walked this continent. They are living in their natural environment and we are entering their world, they are not entering ours.

Everyone knows they enter blue water at their peril. We do so at the risk of numerous possible misadventures, of which shark attack is the most remote.

Given that millions of swimmers and surfers have taken to the waters around Australia during the past century, and given the proximity of so many sharks close to shore through that time, there have been remarkably few attacks relative to these numbers.

Sharks are not interested in killing us. We are not of their world. The circumstances have to be unusual for them to attack. Some species, such as white pointers and bull sharks, are more aggressive towards humans than others.

If we are going to respond to the danger presented by sharks it is far more logical for people to exercise greater care rather than seek greater retribution. There is already more than enough human-caused disruption to the ocean habitat from over-fishing and pollution without another gratuitous intrusion into this environment.

Also, to keep the historic distance between humans and sharks, we believe the practice of feeding sharks as entertainment for fee-paying tourists and day trippers should be banned. It disturbs the natural order. It puts humans and sharks into too much unnatural proximity. It has changed the behaviour of sharks.

Australia's beach culture is a big part of our identity. We produce many surfers and ocean swimmers and the surf lifesaving culture is a greatly admired subculture of service.

Part of the respect we accord these subcultures is the presence of many risks in open water. The greatest risk of all is that there are predators against which we have little defence.

It makes sense to take as many precautions as possible to protect swimmers and surfers. The traditional methods - shark nets, beach patrols and air patrols - can always be improved and upgraded.

In WA, part of the effort to upgrade protection extends to using shark-deterrent wetsuits and shark shields. But a researcher into shark attacks, Christopher Neff, at the University of Sydney, is sceptical about this new technology being effective.

All shark protection methods, from deploying and maintaining nets to paying for surf and aerial patrols, cost time and money. They will never remove the danger. The ocean is simply not our domain and we should not try to colonise it further.

Let's end the ego trips and get back to proper cricket

Even Test cricket, the game that takes up to five days to play and can still result in a draw, has to move on. Sometimes it moves on well, sometimes badly. The imposing new Bradman and Noble stands at the Sydney Cricket Ground form an impressive addition to the Test cricket arena. They even have craft beers and gourmet food and a soaring aesthetic quality.

Other aspects of the game have not evolved graciously. We offer by example the celebrations of batsmen when they have scored a half-century or century. We miss the traditional diffidence of the men in white flannel, in the days before their uniforms became billboards for corporate sponsors. We yearn for a return to the humble nod, the simple touching of the cap, the briefly raised bat to acknowledge the ovation of the crowd when a century has been scored. Understated. Restrained. Cricket.

Now, in keeping with the creeping exhibitionism of our time, batsmen routinely celebrate their personal milestone by running the length of the pitch, waving their bat, sometimes doffing their helmet, usually jumping, pointing and then the ostentatious, patriotic kissing of the coat of arms.

Sometimes it looks as if the batsman and their badge should get a room. We fear the direction this is heading: football, where players roll about after scoring, hugging, gesturing, dancing with the corner post and generally doing everything that screams ''me''. It is just not cricket, not as we want it to remain.